DeVAUGHN v. UNNAMED BUREAU OF PRISONS GUARD, 14-cv-00139-LTB. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20141231907
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER LEWIS T. BABCOCK, District Judge. This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and served on December 11, 2014 (Doc 60). Plaintiff has filed written Objections (Doc 61). Therefore, I have reviewed the file and record in this matter de novo and accordingly, it is ORDERED that the recommendation is accepted as follows: 1. Defendant Solis' Motion to Dismiss (Doc 24) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant
Summary: ORDER LEWIS T. BABCOCK, District Judge. This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and served on December 11, 2014 (Doc 60). Plaintiff has filed written Objections (Doc 61). Therefore, I have reviewed the file and record in this matter de novo and accordingly, it is ORDERED that the recommendation is accepted as follows: 1. Defendant Solis' Motion to Dismiss (Doc 24) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant ..
More
ORDER
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, District Judge.
This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and served on December 11, 2014 (Doc 60). Plaintiff has filed written Objections (Doc 61). Therefore, I have reviewed the file and record in this matter de novo and accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the recommendation is accepted as follows:
1. Defendant Solis' Motion to Dismiss (Doc 24) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Solis because they are time-barred, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. The Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Gould and C. Hendenskog (Doc 38) is GRANTED and the claims asserted against Defendants Hendenskog and Gould are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time-barred.
3. Plaintiff's Motions to Amend Amended Complaint (Docs 46 and 52) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all Defendants.
Source: Leagle
